Regulation

Woke Capitalism or Sleepy Oversight?

Some of the same people who are trying to convince us that January 6 was a peaceful sightseeing outing and that the situation in Ukraine is a minor territorial dispute have come up with a remarkable explanation for the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. They claim it is the result of what they call “woke capitalism.”

Politicians such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and House Oversight Chair James Comer are echoing claims by propagandist Tucker Carlson that SVB’s collapse was the result of its involvement with ESG—environmental, social and governance policies meant to promote objectives such as sustainability and diversity.

There are two problems with this claim. The first is that SVB was hardly a leader in the ESG world. The bank’s preoccupation was apparently to ingratiate itself with venture capitalists, private equity investors and start-up entrepreneurs, whether or not they were pursuing social goals. It was also chummy with California wineries. SVB wanted to be a power in Silicon Valley, not a crusader. Like most banks, it made some ESG-type investments, but they were a small part of its portfolio.

The other problem is that there is no connection between ESG practices and the forces that led to SVB’s demise. Based on what has come to light so far, it appears what happened at the bank was largely a result of poor risk management. SVB failed to pay adequate attention to the consequences of having loaded up on long-term government debt securities that were rapidly losing value at a time of escalating interest rates.

Along with that poor internal risk management, there was apparently a failure of regulatory oversight. To some extent, this was the fault of the Trump Administration and Congress, which in 2018 watered down the Dodd-Frank Act and exempted banks of SVB’s size from intensive scrutiny.

As pointed out by the New York Times, Moody’s was more alert to the perils at SVB than the regulators or the bank’s own executives. Last week the credit rating agency contacted the bank’s CEO Greg Becker to warn him that SVB’s bonds were in danger of being downgraded to junk status.

This set off a scramble by SVB to raise more capital. Once depositors got wind of this, they began emptying their accounts, many of which had balances above the $250,000 limit normally insured by the FDIC. Soon there was a full-blown run on the bank, prompting regulators to take over SVB and shut it down. The Biden Administration then bailed out the depositors in whole, using assessments from other banks. ESG has nothing to do with any of this.

As this is being written, the business news is focusing on problems at Credit Suisse. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. Right tries to apply the woke label to that situation as well. Although it gives lip service to ESG, Credit Suisse has a track record of less than enlightened practices. Two decades ago, it was being sued over its investments in apartheid-era South Africa. It has a history of lending to oil and gas projects and has been slow to respond to demands to reduce that exposure.

As shown in Violation Tracker, Credit Suisse’s record in the U.S. includes numerous cases in which it paid penalties to resolve allegations relating to the facilitation of tax evasion, foreign bribery and other misconduct. Its U.S. penalty total is over $11 billion.

Come to think of it, the Right will probably decide that a bank with a history of making money from racism, fossil fuels, tax evasion and bribery is worthy of support.

The woke capitalism critique cannot be taken seriously as an explanation of what happened at SVB. Yet there is the danger that it will serve to divert attention for some away from the real problems: reckless bank management and sleepy financial regulation.

Ending the Under-Regulation of the Railroads

When an apparent contract impasse between rail unions and management threatened to bring about a national shutdown late last year, the Biden Administration was quick to act. Unfortunately, the action it took was to ban the walkout without requiring any concessions from the giant rail corporations.

Two months later, a freight train operated by one of those corporations, Norfolk Southern, derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. Many of the 150 railcars—which included tankers filled with hazardous materials such as vinyl chloride—caught fire and burned for days. During this time, the Biden Administration was widely criticized for failing to act promptly.

After a couple of weeks, the administration did catch up, especially once the Environmental Protection Agency got more directly involved. Now the EPA is in charge of the response and is finally requiring Norfolk Southern to remediate the area under plan approved by the agency rather than doing the voluntary cleanup the company had previously promised.

Like many accidents before it, the East Palestine derailment has brought to light some disturbing truths about the way in which the federal government regulates—or fails to regulate—the railroad industry. It is in the wake of these incidents that all the claims by rightwing legislators and corporate executives about heavy-handed oversight of business are revealed to be baseless.

Instead, the problem with railroads is that they are under-regulated and that government officials are too chummy with the major carriers. This is especially true with regard to the Federal Railroad Administration, the unit of the Transportation Department responsible for rail safety.

The FRA’s gentle approach to regulation goes back many years. Here’s an excerpt from a 1996 article in the Los Angeles Times:

The National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday blamed the Federal Railroad Administration, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the railroad industry as a whole for February’s disastrous freight train wreck in the Cajon Pass near San Bernardino…The board said the runaway train derailment apparently occurred because the FRA, the industry and the Santa Fe division of the newly formed Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad failed to ensure that the train was equipped with a backup electronic brake system that probably could have stopped the train after its main braking system failed… “The problem is that we asked the FRA to do something immediately, and they didn’t do it,” Robert Lauby, chief of the NTSB’s railroad division, told the board.

A 2004 article in the New York Times documented close personal ties between FRA officials and industry executives and lobbyists, adding: “Critics of the agency say that it has, over the years, bred an attitude of tolerance toward safety problems, and that fines are too rare, too small and too slowly collected.” A 2005 audit of the FRA by the Transportation Department’s inspector general expressed concern about the agency’s failure to adequately address systemic safety problems in the industry.

In 2015, following a series of derailments and spills of trains carrying crude oil, the FRA proposed new regulations that were widely criticized as inadequate by members of Congress, state and local officials, and safety advocates.

The Obama Administration did, however, try to implement new rules requiring trains carrying “high hazardous materials” to install electronic braking systems to stop trains more quickly than conventional air brakes. The rule was finalized in 2015, only to be repealed as part of the Trump Administration’s crusade to eliminate regulations.

Reporting published since the East Palestine disaster depicts Norfolk Southern as having taken full advantage of the FRA’s lax oversight and as one of the most aggressive opponents of a proposed regulation that would bar railroads from operating trains with only a single crewmember.

In recent years the company has boosted profits while its accident rates have grown, leading to charges that it is cutting corners on safety to fatten the bottom line. A USA Today analysis found that Norfolk Southern has had the second-highest rate among the major railroads each year since 2019.

The exact cause of the East Palestine derailment is not yet known. If the National Transportation Safety Board finds it was something preventable, that will put heat on both the company and the FRA. The company will face calls to invest more to upgrade its equipment, even at the cost of profits. And the agency will feel new pressure to end its cozy relationship with the industry and show that it is serious about protecting the public.

Biden’s Catalogue of Corporate Abuses

There was not much soaring oratory in President Biden’s State of the Union address, but the speech was an unapologetic call for a full set of progressive policy initiatives. It was also a bold critique of big business practices affecting workers, consumers and communities. Biden offered what amounted to a catalogue of corporate misconduct.

Although Biden implicitly praised the private sector for strong job creation during the past few years and explicitly hailed companies planning to make big investments in U.S. semiconductor production (with generous federal subsidies), he also spoke of the prior decades during which corporations moved large numbers of well-paid manufacturing jobs overseas and devastated many communities.

Biden chastised Big Pharma for charging exorbitant prices and generating high profits, warning that he would veto any attempts by Congress to repeal new legislation that will require the industry to negotiate Medicare drug prices for the first time.

Calling the tax system unfair, Biden lambasted large companies that have managed to avoid paying anything to the federal government and praised the adoption of a 15 percent minimum. Addressing those corporations, he stated: “just pay your fair share.”

Citing Big Oil’s record profits over the past year, Biden criticized the industry for not investing more in domestic production and instead using the windfall for stock buybacks that boost share prices. He called for quadrupling the tax on those transactions.

Biden went after insurance companies for surprise medical bills and called out nursing homes “that commit fraud, endanger patient safety, or prescribe drugs they don’t need.” He took credit for cracking down on shipping companies that charged excessive rates during the supply-chain crunch.

Touting a bill called the Junk Fee Prevention Act, Biden lashed out at hidden surcharges and fees imposed by hotels, airlines, banks, credit card companies, cable TV and cellphone providers, ticket services, and other sectors. “Americans are tired of being played for suckers,” he declared.

Biden took aim at large employers that require workers, even in low-skilled positions, to sign non-competition agreements, blocking them from taking a job with a competing company. Saying he is “sick and tired of companies breaking the law by preventing workers from organizing” unions, he called for passage of the PRO Act.

Speaking of the efforts to keep small business afloat during the pandemic, he vowed to double-down on efforts to prosecute corruption in those programs.

Biden also joined the chorus of voices denouncing the tech giants, stating “we must finally hold social media companies accountable for the experiment they are running on our children for profit.” He called for legislation to “stop Big Tech from collecting personal data on kids and teenagers online, ban targeted advertising to children, and impose stricter limits on the personal data these companies collect on all of us.”

There was a lot more to the speech, but this was a remarkable recitation of the sins of unbridled big business. It is significant that Biden delivered this critique without ever using the word “regulation,” which the Right has endlessly demonized. Yet he spoke repeatedly of both administrative and legislative initiatives to address the abuses.

The latter category is dead in the water in the new divided Congress. It will be up to the Biden Administration to show what it can do through executive action to turn his critique into significant change.

The 2022 Corporate Rap Sheet

The prognosis for the U.S. economy remains uncertain, but it is clear that 2022 has been a bumper year for corporate penalties. Including an update that will be posted soon, Violation Tracker will end up documenting more than $56 billion in fines and settlements. Among them are a dozen individual penalties in excess of $1 billion.

Many of the largest cases were brought by state attorneys general against large drug companies and pharmacy chains for their role in fueling the opiate crisis. Teva Pharmaceuticals entered into a settlement worth up to $4.25 billion to resolve allegations it deceptively marketed opioid products. Allergan paid $2.37 billion in a similar case.

Settlements were even higher in cases involving the failure of large pharmacy chains to question extraordinarily high volumes of suspicious opioid prescriptions. Walgreens paid $5.7 billion, CVS $5 billion and Walmart $3.1 billion.

The biggest Justice Department penalties were imposed on foreign companies in criminal cases. Allianz, the German insurance company and asset manager, paid $5.8 billion to resolve allegations that it misled public pension funds into investing in complex and risky financial products, causing them to suffer heavy losses. Denmark’s Danske Bank A/S paid $2 billion to settle charges that it lied to U.S. banks about its anti-money-laundering controls in order to help high-risk customers in countries such as Russia transfer assets.

Glencore, a commodity trading and mining company headquartered in Switzerland, paid $1.2 billion in a case involving international bribery. In another case brought under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, ABB Ltd, also based in Switzerland, paid DOJ a penalty of $315 million. It was also offered a leniency agreement called a deferred prosecution agreement, even though it was not the first time the company had been caught up in a bribery case.

In another case in which DOJ targeted a foreign company for actions abroad, the French building materials company Lafarge (part of the Holcim Group) paid $777 million to resolve allegations that it gave material support to terrorist groups such as ISIS when it made payments in exchange for permission to operate a cement plant in Syria.

Coming in just under a billion was the $900 million settlement DOJ reached with the drug company Biogen to resolve allegations that it paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce them to prescribe its products. This was the largest penalty among some 200 resolutions of cases brought under the False Claims Act during the year.

The biggest environmental fine of 2022 was the $299 million paid by automaker FCA US LLC (formerly the Chrysler Group and now part of Stellantis) to resolve criminal charges that it defrauded regulators and customers by making false and misleading representations about the design, calibration, and function of the emissions control systems on more than 100,000 of its vehicles. The allegations were similar to those faced by Volkswagen in its emissions cheating scandal, for which it paid around $20 billion in fines and settlements in previous years.

This year also saw an environmental settlement of $537 million paid by Monsanto (owned by Bayer) in a case involving the contamination of water supplies with polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.

Privacy was the focus of numerous large cases, especially ones involving the tech giants. Google paid $391 million in a settlement with 40 state attorneys general of allegations the company misled consumers about the collection and use of their personal location data. Twitter had to pay $150 million to resolve allegations by DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission that it misrepresented how it employed users’ nonpublic contact information.

Employment-related cases tend to have lower regulatory penalty amounts, but private class action cases can result in sizeable settlements. This year saw Sterling Jewelers pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that for years it had discriminated against tens of thousands of women in its pay and promotion practices. Business services company ABM Industries agreed to pay $140 million to settle litigation alleging it failed to keep accurate records of time worked by its janitor employees, causing them to be underpaid.

There were also cases that overlapped employment issues and antitrust. Cargill, Sanderson Farms and Wayne Farms agreed to pay a total of more than $84 million to settle allegations that they violated antitrust laws by sharing poultry workers wage and benefit information, thereby depressing compensation levels.

In 2022 large corporations once again paid vast sums of money in connection with a wide range of misconduct. At the same time, they are spending more than ever to tout their supposed social responsibility credentials. The country would be a lot better off if big business focused less on ESG PR and more on compliance.

Update: After this blog was posted, several other major penalties were announced. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced the largest penalty in its history against Wells Fargo, which was ordered to pay a fine of $1.7 billion and provide $2 billion in customer restitution to resolve allegations that the bank imposed illegal fees and interest charges on borrowers for automobile and home loans. The Federal Trade Commission fined software company Epic Games $520 million for violating online privacy protections for children. And a subsidiary of Honeywell was fined more than $160 million for paying bribes in Brazil.

Blowing the Whistle on Twitter

There has never been much doubt that the tech giants do not take government regulation seriously, but it is helpful to get confirmation of that from inside the corporations. This is the import of a whistleblower complaint from the former security head of Twitter that has just become public.

Peiter Zatko submitted a document to the SEC, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission accusing top company executives of violating the terms of a 2011 settlement with the FTC concerning the failure to safeguard the personal information of users. The agency had alleged that “serious lapses in the company’s data security allowed hackers to obtain unauthorized administrative control of Twitter, including both access to non-public user information and tweets that consumers had designated as private, and the ability to send out phony tweets from any account.”

Zatko’s complaint, which will play into the company’s ongoing legal battle with Elon Musk over his aborted takeover bid, alleges that Twitter did not try very hard to comply with the FTC settlement and that it prioritized user growth over reducing the number of bogus accounts.

These accusations are far from surprising. In fact, three months ago Twitter agreed to pay $150 million to resolve a case brought by the FTC and the Justice Department alleging that it was in breach of the 2011 settlement for having told users it was collecting their telephone numbers and email addresses for account-security purposes while failing to disclose that it also intended to use that information to help companies send targeted advertisements to consumers.

Since Zatko was fired by Twitter in January, he is in no position to describe company behavior since the most recent settlement. It is difficult to believe that the $150 million fine will be sufficient to get Twitter to become serious about data protection.

Twitter is not the only tech company with a checkered history in this area. In 2012 Facebook and the FTC settled allegations that the company deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information private and then repeatedly allowed it to be shared and made public. Facebook agreed to change its practices.

As with Twitter, it eventually became clear that Facebook was not completely living up to its obligations. The FTC brought a new action, and in 2019 the company had to pay a penalty of $5 billion for continuing to deceive users about their ability to control the privacy of their data. The settlement also put more responsibility on the company’s board to make sure that privacy protections are enforced, and it enhanced external oversight by an independent third-party monitor.

Zatko’s allegations may prompt the FTC to seek new penalties against Twitter that go beyond the relatively mild sanctions in the settlement from earlier this year.

The bigger question is whether regulators and lawmakers are willing to find new ways to rein in a group of mega-corporations. The effort in Congress to enact new tech industry antitrust measures seems to have fizzled out for now. Such initiatives need to be revived. We cannot let an industry that plays such a substantial role in modern life think it is above the law.

Parent Company Makeovers?

The addition of historical parent data to Violation Tracker, including a list of the most penalized corporations based on that data, may have led some p.r. executives to hope that their employer would look better on the new tally. Many of them will end up disappointed.

In last week’s Dirt Diggers, I compared the 100 most penalized current parents to the 100 most penalized historical parents and found limited differences. This week I expand the focus to the top 1,000.

Among that larger group, nearly half have penalty totals based on historical parent-subsidy linkages that are lower than their totals based on current ownership relationships.

Yet the median difference for those with lower historical totals is just $14 million. Only 34 of the 1,000 companies ended up with zero penalties using the historical basis; another 33 ended up with totals below $1 million. The biggest beneficiary of the different approach is Viatris, almost all of whose $1 billion in penalties based on current linkages were incurred by Mylan and Upjohn before they merged in 2020 to form the new company.

Other parents that look good when switching from current to historical linkages include: Equitable Holdings, whose big penalties occurred when it was owned by AXA, and Daimler Truck, just about all of whose penalties date from the period when it was still part of Daimler AG, now known as Mercedes-Benz Group.

Among the 1,000 most penalized current parents there are more than 400 whose historical total is exactly the same, reflecting the fact that they neither acquired nor spun off penalized subsidiaries. Those in this group with the largest penalty amounts are Deutsche Bank, Purdue Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Toyota, Allianz, PG&E, and Barclays. The median penalty total for all the zero-difference parents in the top 1000 list is $59 million.

Sixty-seven of the top 1,000 parents look worse when switching from the current to the historical basis. That is because they divested a heavily penalized subsidiary. Those with the biggest penalty differences include: Abbott Laboratories, which spun off AbbVie with its $1.5 billion in penalties; AXA, which spun off Equitable and its $651 million in penalties; and Daiichi Sankyo, which sold Ranbaxy USA, which had accumulated more than $500 million in penalties.

Another 11 companies—such as BP, which sold its heavily penalized operations in Texas City, Texas to Marathon Petroleum, and General Electric, which has been downsizing in numerous sectors—have historical penalty totals at least $100 million lower than their current totals. Yet all of those still end up with historical totals of more than $300 million, and in four cases—BP, Johnson & Johnson, GE and Boehringer Ingelheim—the amount is above $1 billion.

The upshot of all this is that switching the focus from current to historical parent linkages does not show a dramatic difference in the misconduct track record of most large companies. While the new data may not help much for company makeovers, I hope it will prove useful for those taking a critical look at corporate behavior.

Note: the historical parent data now in Violation Tracker is accessible only to those who purchase a subscription. Searching and displaying the other data remain free of charge.

Violation Tracker’s New Track

Since Violation Tracker was introduced in 2015, my colleagues and I at the Corporate Research Project have put a lot of effort into identifying the ultimate parent companies of the firms named in the many thousands of individual enforcement records we collect. This has allowed us to show which of those parents have the highest penalty totals linked to their current line-up of divisions and subsidiaries. That dubious distinction has been achieved by the likes of Bank of America, BP and Volkswagen.

Some of the corporations on this list have complained it is unfair to link them to penalties incurred by subsidiaries before they were acquired. We have taken the position that when a company is purchased, the acquirer is in effect buying that entity’s track record. We have thus felt comfortable attributing those past bad acts to the current owners.

Nonetheless, we recognize that Violation Tracker users may want to distinguish between penalties received while the entity has been linked to the current owner and those that occurred before. We thus undertook the task of reconstructing the ownership history of the entities named in the 106,000 entries in Violation Tracker that are linked to one of the more than 3,000 parents for which we aggregate data.

That project is now complete, and the historical data has been incorporated in a newly redesigned Violation Tracker—both in the individual entries and in a list showing the 100 parents with the largest penalty totals based on ownership linkages at the time each penalty was announced.

Before I reveal more about that list, I must report that the cost of this project and the ongoing expenses associated with a very labor-intensive resource compelled us to begin requiring users to purchase a subscription in order to access certain features of the site. Those features include the parent history data and the ability to download search results. Searching and displaying search results (without the historical data) remain free of charge. More details of the subscription system can be found here.

The expanded entries visible to subscribers show the parent at the time of the penalty and the current parent. If the two are different, there is a field summarizing the ownership changes that occurred. For example, an entry on a penalty paid in 2002 by the trucking company Overnite Transportation now notes that its parent at the time was Union Pacific. A new history recap field states: “In 2003 Union Pacific spun off Overnite. In 2005 the company was acquired by United Parcel Service, which sold it to TFI International [the current parent] in 2021.” In addition to accessing such information in individual entries, subscribers can search by historical parent name in the Advanced Search section.

Returning to the list of most penalized parents based on historical ownership linkages, the first finding is that it contains many of the same corporations as the list based on current linkages. In fact, the same name is at the top of both lists: Bank of America. The only difference is that BofA’s historical penalty total–$79 billion—is lower than its total on the current list: $83 billion. That mainly reflects the subtraction of the penalties incurred by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide before they were acquired by BofA amid the financial crisis of 2008.

JPMorgan Chase, number two on the current list, drops to third place on the historical list because of the elimination of penalties related to its big 2008 acquisitions: Washington Mutual and Bear, Stearns. BP rises from third to second. Otherwise, the corporations in the top ten and their rankings are identical in the two lists. The others in that group are: Volkswagen, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Goldman Sachs, and Johnson & Johnson. Their penalty totals range from $14 billion to $25 billion on both lists.

Expanding the focus to the full list of the top 100 yields similar results. Eighty-four of the 100 most penalized current parents are also on the list of the 100 most penalized historical parents. Of the remaining 16, four fall slightly above 100 in the historical ranking. The other dozen are parents which, like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, bought or merged with other companies with substantial penalty histories.

For example, when Occidental Petroleum bought Anadarko Petroleum in 2019, it took on a business that had earlier been involved in a $5 billion settlement with the Justice Department. Apart from Anadarko, Occidental has accumulated $218 million in penalties.

Among the 16 companies on the historical top 100, but not the current list, is Abbott Laboratories. It gets eliminated from the current list because of its 2013 spinoff of AbbVie, which included businesses with more than $1.5 billion in previous penalties. Without AbbVie, Abbott still has penalties of $785 million.

Any parent company with ownership changes involving businesses with substantial penalty records is going to rank differently on the current and historical lists. Yet these differences do not change the fact that most large corporations have abysmal compliance records no matter how we add up their penalties.

The Regulation Bashers

Uber Technologies, a company which already had a less than sterling reputation, now has to contend with more blemishes on its record, thanks to a massive leak of internal documents to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Using what has been dubbed the Uber Files, ICIJ and partner media outlets such as The Guardian and The Washington Post have published a flurry of articles describing how the company, during a period when cofounder Travis Kalanick was still CEO, used a variety of aggressive techniques to fight regulators as it sought to conquer the tax industry around the world. At the same time, the company ingratiated itself with numerous world leaders to help in its expansion. Some Uber executives liked to refer to themselves as “pirates.”

While many of the details are fascinating, the main revelations in the Uber Files are far from surprising. The company was already known for ruthless tactics. In the United States alone, Uber has racked up more than $300 million in fines and penalties. About half of that total comes from a single settlement with a group of states which alleged that it tried to cover up a data breach affecting over 50 million customers.

Uber paid $20 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that it misled prospective drivers with exaggerated claims about earnings potential and about the availability of vehicle financing. It paid $10 million to Los Angeles and San Francisco counties (another $15 million was suspended) in settlement of allegations it misled customers about the background checks it carried out on its drivers. It was fined numerous times by state regulators for operating without proper authority or for failing to comply with reporting requirements.

It is clear that Uber, especially during the Kalanick era, has regarded regulation with contempt. One cannot help but suspect that the company’s name is meant to portray it not only as being above its competitors but also above the oversight of governments.

While Uber has been quite brazen in its hostility toward regulation, that opposition is hardly unusual. The Uber Files are appearing not long after the rightwingers of the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that not only blocked the Biden Administration’s effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions but may also lead to the dismantling of many other forms of government oversight of business.

There is now growing concern that the Court could revive rulings such as the 1905 Lochner decision which struck down a New York law that prohibited employers from imposing excessive working hours. Lochner held sway for several decades until giving way to the labor protections adopted during the New Deal era.

It is not hyperbole to suggest that the Court wants to bring back an economy that resembles the laissez-faire system of the 19^th Century. That is, after all, an implication of the originalism the rightwing Justices claim to espouse. If Roe has to be overturned because the Constitution says nothing about abortion, then don’t laws about fair labor standards or product safety also have to fall because the founders did not address those issues either?

It may be that the bigger threat comes not from business executives pretending to be pirates but from extremists in black robes laying waste to essential government safeguards.

Reviving the Ultimate Corporate Punishment

Big business has despised the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since its creation, and now the director of the agency has provided additional basis for that enmity. Rohit Chopra recently delivered a speech to the University of Pennsylvania Law School that amounted to one of the most aggressive statements on corporate misconduct ever made by a federal regulatory official. And he put forth some bold ideas for dealing with the problem.

Chopra began with the observation that the CFPB, which has been in operation for only about a decade, has had to take action against some major financial institutions on multiple occasions—five times in the case of Citigroup and four times against JPMorgan Chase, for example. These cases have resulted in billions of dollars in penalties and consumer redress.

The CFPB’s experience is not unique. “Repeat offenses – whether it’s for the exact same offense or more malfeasance in different business lines,” are, Chopra stated, “par for the course for many dominant firms.”

This conclusion is reinforced by the data collected in Violation Tracker. Over the past two decades, the commercial banks in the Fortune 100 have paid over $190 billion in fines and settlements. More than 100 corporations across all sectors have each paid over $1 billion in penalties.

The central question, as Chopra put it, is: “How do we stop large dominant firms from violating the law over and over again with seeming impunity? Corporate recidivism has become normalized and calculated as the cost of doing business; the result is a rinse-repeat cycle that dilutes legal standards and undermines the promise of the financial sector and the entire market system.”

Chopra’s address was remarkable in that it also put forth a vision for solving the problem. In addition to more prosecutions of individual executives, he calls for a focus on structural remedies, including putting restrictions on the ability of rogue corporations to grow.

This idea is not unprecedented; in fact, as Chopra notes, it was implemented by regulators in the case of Wells Fargo. In 2018, following revelations that the bank had created two million bogus customer accounts to generate illicit fees, the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of barring it from growing any larger until it cleaned up its business practices.

Chopra proposes to take even more aggressive measures. He wants to see misbehaving corporations forced to close or divest portions of their operations. He would deny such companies access to government-granted privileges. For example, pharmaceutical violators could lose their patents; lawless banks could lose access to FDIC deposit insurance.

Chopra indicated he is also exploring the most remedy of all: putting corrupt corporations out of business entirely. He warned that the CFPB will be deepening its collaboration with officials at the state level, where corporations are chartered, “to ascertain whether licenses should be suspended or whether corporate assets should be liquidated.”

In other words, Chopra is proposing greater use of what is often called the corporate death penalty (he doesn’t used that phrase). Such punishment is applied by some states in dealing with bad actors, but they are usually small, fly-by-night operations.

Talk of putting a large company out of business has been largely taboo since the case of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which shut down in 2002 after being prosecuted for offenses relating to its role as the auditor of the fraudulent energy company Enron. There was a strong backlash in the business world against the prosecution, especially after the conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chopra is no longer daunted by that episode. He argues that terminating corporate charters and licenses “should be considered for institutions of all sizes when the facts and circumstances warrant it.”

His speech may be a turning point in the prosecution of corporate crime. The two decades since the Enron/Arthur Andersen case have seen a tsunami of misconduct. Violation Tracker, whose mission is to document the phenomenon, is now up to more than 500,000 cases with fines and settlements of $786 billion.

While the penalties continue to accumulate, there is no evidence that corporate behavior is improving. Another approach is needed. Chopra’s roadmap is a good place to start.

The Corporate Crime Lobby

One big difference between street crime and corporate crime is that drug dealers, burglars and arsonists generally are not able to influence the way their misdeeds are investigated and prosecuted.

Corporate violators, on the other hand, can use lobbying and campaign spending to push for policies that may make it less likely their wrongdoing will be detected or will be treated more leniently if it is discovered.

Much of this business effort is exercised through trade associations, and probably the biggest influencer of them all is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As is highlighted in a new report from Public Citizen, the Chamber has been an outspoken opponent of the Biden Administration’s plan to adopt a more aggressive posture toward corporate misconduct.

It has been especially critical of a new approach being taken by the Federal Trade Commission, which voted in November to expand its criminal referral program. While the FTC itself can bring only civil actions, the agency can pass on evidence of corporate criminality to the Justice Department—and now it will be doing more of that. The Chamber accused the FTC of “waging a war against American businesses” and vowed to “use every tool at our disposal, including litigation, to stop its abuse of power.”

The Public Citizen report demonstrates why the Chamber is so agitated: many of its leading members have been involved in significant cases of malfeasance in the past and are likely to be similarly embroiled in the future.

Using extensive data from Violation Tracker, the report shows that the known members of the Chamber have been involved in thousands of civil and criminal matters and have paid more than $150 billion in fines and settlements.

Three major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo—alone account for $81 billion in penalties, and the pharmaceutical industry another $26 billion.

While these numbers represent all forms of misconduct, Public Citizen gives special attention to the 19 Chamber members that have been involved in criminal cases. Among them are Amgen (illegal drug promotion), Bayer (price-fixing) and Zimmer Biomet (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

The report notes that at several other Chamber members such as American Express are reported to be targets of current criminal investigations.

Public Citizen looks at overall corporate rap sheets, but given the Chamber’s hyperbolic statements about the FTC, it is worth zeroing in on cases brought by that agency.

As Violation Tracker shows, the FTC has fined companies over $14 billion since 2000. More than one-third of that total comes from a single case brought against a Chamber member. Facebook, whose parent company is now called Meta Platforms, was penalized $5 billion in 2019 for deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.

Other Chamber members involved in significant FTC cases include: Citigroup, which paid $215 million to resolve allegations that two of its subsidiaries engaged in deceptive subprime lending practices; Alphabet, whose Google subsidiary paid $136 million for violating rules regarding the online collection of personal data on children; and AT&T, whose AT&T Mobility subsidiary paid $80 million to the FTC to provide refunds to consumers the company unlawfully billed for unauthorized third-party charges.

These were all civil matters. The Chamber is apparently worried that such cases could now result in referrals to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, especially since the DOJ is vowing to bring more such actions.

The next few years will be a test of whether more aggressive regulators and prosecutors can overcome the power of the corporate crime lobby.